DWARIKA PRASAD Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Prabha Kant Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon appearing on behalf of respondent No 3, Kali Shanker.

(2.) THE petitioners are the landlords while Kali Shanker, Shambhu and Hafiz Mohd. Irfan were tenants in separate accommodation. Two P.A. Cases Nos. 8/88 and 9/98 were filed by the petitioners against Shambhu and Hafiz Mohd. Irfan. Kali Shanker respondent No. 3, who was the tenant filed a suit No. 653 of 1996 for the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit as well as two P.A. Cases Nos. 8/88 and 9/88 were decided in terms of the compromise dated 7.8.1990. One of the terms of the compromise (Clause 8) was that in case after dispossession of the tenants landlord do not put the tenants in their newly constructed premises, landlord shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per day as damages. Respondent No. 3 was dispossessed forcibly on 16.12.1991 and was put in possession of the newly constructed premises on 3.8.1993. Respondent No. 3 filed an execution application No. 18 of 1993 to put the decree for execution based on the compromise. The Executing Court has awarded damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioners filed a revision application which too has been dismissed. Earlier also the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 35886 of 1997 which was disposed of with the direction that the matter is remanded back to the Court concerned for re-hearing of the appeal. After passing of the said order the Civil Revision Nos. 229 of 1996, 230 of 1996 have been decided by the IInd Addl. District Judge, Azamgarh on 15.1.1998. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners/landlord have come before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. In Swetamber Jain Samiti v. Alleged Committee of Management, reported in JT 1996(3) SC 21, the Supreme Court held that the High Court will not permit the extraordinary jurisdiction to be converted into civil Court under the ordinarily law. If the suit is pending, interim miscellaneous orders cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction.